Strahan and Strahan (No. 8)

[2008] FamCA 930

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA

STRAHAN & STRAHAN (NO. 8) [2008] FamCA 930

FAMILY LAW – PROCEDURAL – Interim property

Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

APPLICANT: Ms Strahan

RESPONDENT: Mr Strahan

FILE NUMBER: ADF 228 of 2005

DATE DELIVERED: 17 October 2008

PLACE DELIVERED: Adelaide

JUDGMENT OF: Strickland J

HEARING DATE: 17 October 2008

REPRESENTATION

COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT: Mr G Holland

SOLICITOR FOR THE APPLICANT: Pederick Lawyers

COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT: Mr N Ackman QC, with
Ms K McMillan

SOLICITOR FOR THE RESPONDENT: Robinson & Mason

Orders

1. That SAVE AND EXCEPT for Items 7, 8, 24 and 26, the assets contained in Schedule “A” attached hereto be re-valued if possible by the valuer who undertook the initial valuation.

2. That the livestock located in the property in Switzerland identified in Item 25 in Schedule “A” attached hereto be re-valued.

3. That the property referred to in Item 24 of Schedule “A” attached hereto be valued forthwith by a single expert valuer agreed upon by the parties.

4. That the cost of the re-valuations and valuation be met in the first instance by the husband with the issue of any contribution to those costs by the wife to be determined at trial.

5. That the re-valuations and the valuation referred to in this order be completed such that the valuation reports be filed by 4:00pm on 31 December 2008.

6. That the question of the costs of today including costs of senior counsel be reserved.

IT IS NOTED that publication of this judgment under the pseudonym Strahan and Strahan is approved pursuant to s 121(9)(g) of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth)

FAMILY COURT OF AUSTRALIA AT ADELAIDE

FILE NUMBER: ADF 228 of 2005

MS STRAHAN

Applicant

And

MR STRAHAN

Respondent

EX TEMPORE REASONS

1. The matter was listed today for consideration of whether there is a need to update any of the valuations that have been obtained of various of the assets.  Some time ago, indeed back in 2006, orders were made for assets, both in Australia and overseas, to be valued.  That was a consent order and as time passed that order was eventually complied with.  However, it is obvious that some of the valuations are now out of date, and whether there is a change of value or not is obviously unknown until someone looks at it and does an update. 

2. I have been provided with a schedule of the valuations that have been done to date.  There are one or two issues about that which I will mention in a moment.  The husband's position is that he seeks that all of the items in that list be revalued save and except the property at K and the furniture at B, and the furniture in Switzerland save and except one particular item, which I will again mention in a moment. 

3. Since the order of 29 September 2006 was made there have been further purchases of assets made, and some of those have not been valued.  That includes a property described in the schedule as the S, Hong Kong property, and a property at G, which was purchased in April 2007.

4. In relation to that G property it is agreed that that should now be valued as well as the contents of that property. 

5. In relation to the wife she says that there are some real estate assets that the husband has which have not been valued, particularly in southern Europe.  She alleges that there are a total of seven properties in southern Europe as opposed to the one which is in the list of assets that have been valued.  She also says that there is a particular item in Switzerland, namely livestock, which she said has not been properly valued, either because a copy was shown to the valuer, or for some other reason. 

6. Other issues that have been raised this morning with me by the wife’s counsel is that she alleges that there is substantial wine stored at T which she wants valued, and she wants details of two safes, not from the point of view of necessarily any valuation, but knowing what is in those safes, to then make some decision about what, if anything, needs to be done about the contents. 

7. In relation to the property at S in Hong Kong, the wife suggests that the husband in fact purchased both flat 5 and flat 6, and also there are two parking spaces and storage spaces attached to those properties.  She says they need to be valued as well as the contents of the properties. 

8. The husband's counsel's position about these matters is that this has only just been put to them by the wife's legal representatives and they have not had the opportunity to obtain instructions from their client, which is understandable.  Although the wife is wanting to include these other assets in this valuation exercise, I am not prepared to do that.  She has had ample opportunity to raise these matters before now and I do not propose to make any order until the husband has an opportunity to respond.

9. However, I obviously expect that instructions will be taken about this and if the husband concedes that there are these other assets, I expect that they will be valued.  I note that advice as to the husband's instructions will be conveyed to the wife's solicitors, and of course if she wants to pursue the matter from there then she is perfectly at liberty to do so, either by making an application to this court or dealing with it between solicitors. 

10. I mention that the wife does not ask for all the items in the schedule to be returned, primarily from the point of view of the costs of the exercise given her funds are limited.  However, as Mr Ackman has pointed out, what has happened with the valuations of properties to date is that the husband has borne the cost of that initially and what contribution, if any, the wife is to make to the costs of those valuations is a matter to be determined at trial if it cannot be agreed. 

11. I propose to continue on that basis.  It seems to me that it is necessary to revalue the items that have been identified.  I was concerned though that this not hold up the hearing of this matter, which has tentatively been set for February, and thus I propose to require that any revaluations be undertaken by the end of December this year.

12. In relation to a property at W in Hong Kong, that has been valued, but only from the outside.  It is alleged by the husband that he has no interest in that property, that it is owned or is controlled by Mr TA, and Mr TA has not given his permission for that property to be valued.  The wife does not accept that.  She pursues her position, which indeed has been put to me before, as I recall, that that property should be properly valued from inside.  Also she says there would be contents in there which would need to be valued and which the husband would have an interest in.

13. At this stage I am not in a position to make any finding about whether the husband does have or does not have any interest in that property.  That is a matter that it seems to me will have to wait for trial, unless the wife has some evidence which she can present to me in support of an application that she might want to bring about that pre-trial.  Thus, I do not propose to make any order about that today. 

I certify that the preceding 13 paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for judgment of the Honourable Justice Strickland delivered 17 October 2008.

Associate